I'm fairly sure it's not what you meant, but for some people postal voting is really their best option,l every year. I'm thinking mostly of old peoples homes, where large proportions of the residents can't get to vote. There have been several cases in this sort of situation where the designated proxy voter for the home has basically just used the votes as his own votes, sometimes even voting without the knowledge of the voter, iyswim. I can quite see the value of routine postal voting for some people.
I meant routine for a large proportion of people. Of course there are reasons for it in some cases, but the more it is used the more it will be abused in the way you describe. It's also more vulnerable to other kinds of fraud than a proper secret ballot.
This article suggests that even postal votes can be abused in this situation.
In general, free availability of postal votes violates our right under the European Convention on Human Rights to a secret ballot, since someone can coerce or bribe you into obtaining a postal vote and then filling it in with them watching.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Routine Postal Voting
Date: 2004-04-20 01:24 (UTC)Re: Routine Postal Voting
Date: 2004-04-20 02:07 (UTC)Re: Routine Postal Voting
Date: 2004-04-20 07:59 (UTC)I don't think my views on the issue are sufficiently developed to have a definite opinion.
Re: Routine Postal Voting
Date: 2004-04-20 02:26 (UTC)In general, free availability of postal votes violates our right under the European Convention on Human Rights to a secret ballot, since someone can coerce or bribe you into obtaining a postal vote and then filling it in with them watching.